How do feel about corporal punishment, and the death penalty?
First off, in regards to using "enhanced interrogation techniques;" especially in a life-or-death scenario, if doing so could or will save, or potentially save even one life, I say it's totally acceptable in that case.
And as far as the death penalty, for the crimes of murder, rape, and child molestation, I wholeheartedly support that.
Now I know a lot of these human-rights groups are totally against the death penalty.
But if someone has deliberately harmed another human being, thereby violating their human rights, why should the culprit be allowed to retain his?
And when these human-rights-groups support the "human rights" of someone who deliberately violated the rights of someone else, they show themselves to be hypocrites, as by doing so they are betraying the very values they claim to stand for.
Those are my thoughts. How about you?
Comments
I agree that some terrible crimes, like the ones you've listed and stuff like those, should warrant a death penalty, but only when the individual's guilt is completely proven. If there's even an ounce of doubt or uncertainty, one can't be executed just yet, not until the guilt is proven 100%.
I think there are better approaches than corporal punishment, particularly for children.
I think the death penalty misses the point of punishment, which is intended to be rehabilitative.
Proving a crime 100% is basically impossible though.
Oh, thanks for straightening me out.
Fair enough.
?
Just pointing out that 100% guilt is something that only the accused person themself knows, pretty much.
In the future we'll likely be able to scan peoples thoughts for this though, which will make everything easier.
I still don' think we should kill anyone, but we can at least be certain they are responsible for their crimes.
By 'corporal punishment' I'm assuming you mean torture; 'corporal punishment' usually means hitting your kids. If you're in favor of violating international criminal law, the 1984 term is 'enchanced interrogation.' Though where do you draw the line? Is fake drowning somebody (waterboarding) okay? Is ramming something up their ass okay? (Both of those America apparently does). Is ripping out their fingernails? And this is all supposing it works, which numerous people involved, including Brennan, the head of the CIA, doubts. Not to mention you're assuming that you're torturing the right guy, something which the CIA has also fucked up on a number of occasions. It's not like on 24. Policy shouldn't be made assuming the integrity and competence of its executioners, but reasonably account for potential abuses.
I am absolutely against the death penalty. I think it's completely barbaric, and I've never believed in an eye for an eye. The dealth penalty isn't about justice, it isn't about deterence, it isn't about public safety - it's about vengeance, and I don't think that has any place in the legal system. Also, I don't think I'm looking at it from a human rights perspective, I'm looking at it as a limitation on government power; and I don't think the government should be given the power to take away the life of anyone punatively; I don't think anyone has the right to take away the life of another person unless it is necessary to prevent an imminent ill. I also believe in redemption, not that I think a lot of people are going to find it, but I believe in killing them you've denied them that possiblity. As far as that being hypocritcal - it isn't. It would be hypocritical if I said I was against the death penalty and moonlighted as an executioner, but not for simply believing two wrongs don't make a right. This again assumes that you have the right guy, and there have been plenty of exhonorations for things like outdated testing, false testimony, and even prosecutorial corruption.
Both of your statements seem to go into the same mentality that is pretty common in America, which is effecitvely if somebody does something wrong, illegal, or has ill-will, they've effectively no longer to human, and you can do what you want to them.
Fair enough.
I'm against the death penalty. I feel that if you sentence a murderer to death then its kind of hypocritical. I think life imprisonment would be a way harsher punishment, let them rot and think about what they've done for the rest of their lives.
There was a guy in Ohio that killed a guy who was a convicted child molester for touching his son.
Guess what sentence he got? Probation and a 1500 dollar fine.
You think someone should be killed for touching children? And I hope you realize you supporting the death penalty means you're also a hypocrite.
They will be able to scan people's mind in the future? How do you know that?
If you kill the murderer, the quantity of murders will not change.
I've always been on the fence since both sides have good points, but I lean more towards anti-death penalty. I've seen documentaries of people in prison and how they come to terms with their crime and its consequences, as well as trying to do something for society. Some inmates get degrees, teach classes, and care for pets. Some people can be rehabilitated.
Prison life is horrible if you commit certain crimes. Child molesters are actually targeted in prison, since many of the men there have children of their own outside the fence. Many are killed or tormented by inmates, or driven to suicide. Look at Jeffrey Dahmer. Sex offenders life in prison is literally a living hell.
Death is also an easy way out for them. Let them rot in a cell for decades, instead of giving them a swift end.
Jeffrey Dahmer wasn't a sex offender.
Yes, he most certainly was. He raped and even engaged in necrophilia with some of his victims. That's pretty common knowledge.
No and No.
I support both. I'm an advocate of the Death Penalty, and I do support Corporal Punishment in terms to preventing future Terrorism. I'm too tired to explain why, I may come back later and edit it in.
Edit: I'm such a liar, I apparently have no self restraint lol.
Regarding my stance on Corporal Punishment, I don't think I need to go into too much detail. I have absolutely no sympathy for Terrorists: people who are more than willing to kill thousands of innocents in the most fucked up kind of way to further their equally fucked up agenda. If torturing them get's us the intel we need to prevent future incidents of Terrorism, then by all means go ahead.
As for Death Penalty, I think I need to be a bit more detailed in my explanation, I'm also going to include snippets from my old research paper for Political Science..(I do cite my sources, I can send them to you if anyone feels the need.)
The prospect of life is precious and should always be cherished, for it is not just “valuable”, because things of value can be repaired or replaced. A life under no circumstances can ever be replaced. For this truth is why the death penalty is justified as punishment, in fact it would be essentially morally wrong not to execute a man who has committed murder because the punishment must meet the height of the crime. Shockingly, several people believe putting the murderer in prison for life, the equivalent to a permanent (sometimes temporary) “time out”, suffices as a fair punishment. To abolish capital punishment only cheapens the life of an innocent victim that has been brutally murdered. To say that our society has not the right to prevent a murderer from ever killing again is ludicrous imo.
As of late, Abolitionists (opponents against the Death Penalty) claim that Capital Punishment is unconstitutional, does not deter crime; or the most popular offense, is morally wrong. As a bumper sticker explains, “We kill people to show people that killing people is wrong". One must ask how much truth is there really to this snarky statement. To accuse that the death penalty is “cruel and unusual punishment” (a violation to the 8th amendment) does not serve as a valid argument. When a murderer is sentenced to death that does not mean “torture the man until he dies.” This sentence is meant to bring the inmate to justice, not see how much pain can be inflicted until death takes him. In fact, most criminals on death row get off easy in the U.S. There are five methods of execution used in the U.S.: lethal injection( when the criminal is injected with potassium chloride whilst unconscious, and therefore feels nothing) electrocution( jolting the inmate with 2,300 volts for 8 seconds, immediately knocking them out and killing the brain. Again no lasting pain) lethal gas (the most expensive of all methods, suffocates in mere seconds) hanging (medieval practice, rarely used) and finally firing squad (criminal is blind folded and shot down by 5 marksmen, aimed at the head). As one can see, in reality the murderer is only in pain for 10 seconds or less. Whereas the victim will go through excruciating pain for minutes, hours, even days. Comparing the two, the murderer’s pain does not even begin to make up for the victim's pain. If anyone was subjected to “cruel and unusual punishment” it is the victim. Furthermore, the founders of the constitution who organized laws specifically for it, saw no issues with the death penalty, so to say it is unconstitutional doesn't really hold any grounds.
Being human, morality is a rule that all must subconsciously follow, if one does not, they are labeled “monstrous”, “cruel”, and several other negative adjectives. Detractors question the Death Penalty’s morality due to lex talionis, or “eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth”. Abolitionists argue that if this is true, then the government must torture sadists, castrate rapists, or set fire to an arsonists home. This is easily refuted. If we were to rape a rapist, not only is it inconclusive, but it does not 100% guarantee the rapist from striking again. The death penalty is permanent and therefore prevents future incidents from happening. Also, the term lex talionis is not enforced under literal circumstances (as abolitionists seem to believe otherwise). Hypothetically if it were, then killing in self-defense must also be punished just as severely as premeditated killing. There is a huge difference between “to kill” and “to murder”. One means “to result in death”, the other meaning “the premeditated task of killing another human, motivated by hatred.” The very idea that one could be labeled as “cruel” for punishing a guilty person who heinously murdered an innocent victim is ridiculous.
Without question, capital punishment most definitely serves as a deterrence to crime. This can be simply proven with the deterrence theory, “which implies that increasing the risk of apprehension and punishment for crime deters individuals from committing crime( Death Penalty should not be abolished; Becker). In other words, a criminal first measures the consequences versus the benefits that will result when committing the crime. With this knowledge, capital punishment influences the murder rate immensely. In fact “recent studies have consistently shown a strong link between executions and reduced murder incidents”(DPSNA; Ehrlich). Additionally proven with over 30 years of collected data, each execution, on average, is associated with three less murders, also shorter waits on death row have demonstrated high deterrence( Shepherd, Emory University). Further research shows that all data was gathered with “a panel set of over 3,000 countries from 1977-1996”(Muhlhausen). Relatively speaking, the death penalty is 100% efficient as a deterrence: executing the murderer prevents them from ever harming again. Every time Capital Punishment is enforced, the prisoner dies, and justice is served. That is the punishment for the prisoner’s crime which earned them the sentence to Capital Punishment in the first place.
Capital Punishment has been proven effective in the U.S for years, and is in fact, moral and justified. No one is holding a murderer at gunpoint, forcing them to kill an innocent person. The murderer makes this decision of their own free will. It is also important to keep in mind that the murderer is not innocent and fighting for their life, that title belongs to the ones they have maliciously victimized. Murder is not a crime where you can just give a slap on the wrist, it does not fall in the same category as burglary or vandalism. It is a whole new ball game. As the Senate Judiciary Committee has said, “they must acknowledge the inviolability and dignity of innocent human life, it must be proportionate.” Execution as a punishment did not just appear out of thin air, if no one murdered then no one would sentenced to death. Sadly, we do not live in an ideal world, and must make do with what we have. The execution of a serial killer saves multiple lives in our society,so imo the Death Penalty is there to protect America as a whole.
I agree, scanning people's brains for information does seem a little out there.
Almost sounds like maybe someone has watched to many Sci-fi flicks.
Lol!
I'm also agreeing with you on this But... science is a wonderful monster and maybe one day...But it still sounds crazy at this point in time.
I don't like the death penalty, so many innocent men and women have been killed because of it. I think life in prison is a severe enough punishment, just people rotting in a place they hate is enough to get the point across.
Good for him!
He did what any parent would do, if someone touched their child.
What parent wouldn't want to go after someone who sexually molested their child?
I can attach no criminality to his actions personally, and apparently no-one else could either.
Child molesters are the scrum of the earth, why would anyone release a convicted child molester in the first place, what the hell are these people on the parole boards thinking?
It doesn't make any sense.
Excuse me?
Care to elaborate?
Please do.
I'm curious to know exactly what you mean.
I added it in. I tried to keep it brief..
Damn Tinni, this is keeping it brief?
Anyway, I kinda disagree but I the same time I completely agree with all your points. I think letting a criminal rot in a nasty prison is a way to teach them a lesson, but then again who's to stop from striking again?
The morals of the death penalty really hurt my brain lol.
I think it should depend on whether or not the person feels remorse over what they've done and can prove it. If the person feels nothing for people or what they've done, to hell with them. If they truly do feel remorse over their crimes and want to contribute to society, then we should give them one more chance. Honestly, I don't see how it's any more okay to take away someone's human rights just because they did it to someone else.
Hehe yeah, the key word is "tried". No matter how hard I try, I always end up rambling..I just felt like this is a very serious/controversial subject so I shouldn't hold back on the reasoning behind my stance. But trust me, I actually ended up editing a lot out, so this is keeping it brief for me.XD
A point that I decided to keep out of my post was the fact that our prisons have become incredibly over crowded, and sentencing criminals to Life, instead of the Death Penalty(also by not enforcing the Death Penalty immediately) has done a number on the economy. And recently, crimes that would originally be classified as felonies are now able to be pursuant to misdemeanors, mainly because the prisons are so crowded,so the Courts needs to move some of the residents to the jails. This is not ok, because there is a reason why those crimes were originally felonies, so the fact that they could be given a much lighter sentence simply due to over crowding actually works in the criminal's favor, and that is the opposite of justice imo. People also seem to forget that it is us, the tax payers, who are providing/paying for the vile and despicable people who reside in the prisons. What makes it even worse is when you realize that the victim's family is paying for/supporting the murderer's well being while they're in prison. But I figured that we were discussing the morality of Capital Punishment, so I refrained from delving into the topic.:/
Wow, you've certainly done your homework.
I gotta say, you are definitely smart.
The things I spoke of when creating this thread, you elaborated on very brilliantly, and the detailed-information you added, I found very interesting.
Kudos!
Sounds to me like you have gone to college.
If so congratulations.
Many people never get that chance.
I strongly believe that if a person does commit murder, rape or child molestation, that they do indeed deserve to die, as I already have stated above.
Not only is it a balancing of Justice, but it also sends a strong message to any would-be murders/ rapists/child molesters, that if they commit this particular crime, these are the consequences. And I've always believed that if such a strong message was sent, that the rate of these crimes would drop significantly, which incidentally; I enjoyed the statistics you included in your comment on that subject.
And on a side note, executing dangerous criminals, would help keep our prisons safer for those who are in there for lighter offenses, like car-theft, robbery, etc.
One thing that does puzzle me, if lie-detector tests are inadmissible in court, why does the practice of using them still persist?
Why would you use something to either help prove someone's innocence or guilt, if the results cannot be submitted into the court trial record as evidence?
Any thoughts on that?
While I will say, though liberals do make some good points on certain things, it's because of liberalism that we face the issues we do on these subjects, and it's part of the reason why our legal system is in the shithole it's in.
That, and the fact that we have corrupt men in office, who continue to manipulate the law for their own selfish greed, and trying to keep themselves out of prison when they get caught.
One of the things I hate the most, that it's perfectly legal for a politician to be involved in insider-trading.
While if the rest of us attempt it, and get caught, we end spending an X-amount of years in prison, a place where insider-trading is a whole other game.
the thing i hate the most about it, is the fact that politicians get be above the laws that they create.
Thanks! And yes, I'm currently in College. I am very thankful that I have the opportunity to go.
I completely agree with what you've posted, you yourself also seem to be very educated on the matters of our country, sadly not many are nowadays.
I somehow forgot that we do this, well this has altered my opinion completely.
Thank you.
I try to keep up with current events.
Like all that massive flooding in the Philippines, for example.
Something I found real interesting, I was watching something on Jon Ralston a day or two ago, and he was talking about sexism in the workplace.
And he had this to say: "Does sexism exist? Yes it does. However some women often cry sexism to cover up their own inadequacies, which often helps to obscure; both actual cases of sexism, as well as cases of actual genuine accomplishment."
I must say I found his comment to be both very eloquent, and interesting, and it helped to add another perspective to the issue.
Also, something else I found interesting; or perhaps I shoud say appalling, according to a news report that I heard that in either China or Japan; I forget which country it was, a man in his early sixties was infected with HIV after receiving a blood transfusion of HIV contaminated blood.
The way HIV works, is that after a person has been infected, it takes time for them; sometimes up to six months, before they began to feel any symptoms.
So in reality, though blood is screened for HIV/AIDS, it is not always 100% conclusive, as a person could still be infected, but the virus has not shown up in his blood yet.
The reason I found the second report interesting, is because a person getting HIV from contaminated blood, is something I've not heard of occurring since the 80's; when HIV was a poorly understood disease, and as a consequence hospitals didn't screen donated blood for the disease.
And though I've never been pro blood transfusions, this report did reaffirm why I am against them.
Oh incidentally, do have any Intel in the question that I asked in my previous comment?
Yeah I gotta admit, the fact we were are paying with our tax dollars to house and feed murderers, rapists and child molesters, is completely ludicrous.
Hasn't the victim and their family already suffered enough?
Why should they continue to have to suffer for that person's heinous actions against them, by now having to help house, clothe, and feed the scumbag, and others like him? It's totally bullshit!
The law right now doesn't protect the innocent, even though both legally and morally speaking; that's what it's suppose to do.
Right now it protects the criminal, instead of punishing them.
Fun Fact: I am 95% sure the Roman Catholic Church supports the death penalty if all other options are exhausted.
Well, not only is the death penalty showing out waning barbarism, it breaks something: 'Do not kill' in laws of almost everything, If we kill those who kill, what does that make us? Murders.
Additionally, wouldn't you rather have some rot in prison for the rest of their life instead of getting a 'freebie' out? Their death his utterly painless. Is that a real punishment?
On the corporal penalty, I'm confused? Can someone explain that?
It's a logical progression of our scientific advancements.
Murder isn't right, no matter what wrongs the other person has done.
I wouldn't have murdered him, and I'm essentially a parent.
Not to open up a can of worms, but I'm curious as to how killing prisoners interacts with your faith that is based around forgiveness and rehabilitation?
(If you are indeed a Christian, I can't quite remember if you are or if that's someone else).
Yeah i know, that is why no one cares what happens to Child Molesters when their assaulted in jail or killed. Anyone that hurts a child is evil and deserves no mercy, but that is my opinion.
i disagree, sometimes its either kill or be killed. If you haven't been in that situation, your fortunate.